The Federal Government is NOT the United States

Early in my development as a human being, there was the pledge of allegiance. There was the National Anthem and of course, the Stars & Stripes.

I grew up in Southern California and now that I have had a chance to deprogram myself (which has taken years) I have some questions- for one, where was the pledge to the California Republic? Where was my class on the California Constitution…or even just a mere mention of it in one of my other government classes at my government school?

The reality is that my generation was indoctrinated with a very subtle, but dangerous notion- that the Federal Government IS the United States.

There was no mention in my childhood of state sovereignty…not even the briefest mention of the 10th Amendment. Oh sure, I knew about something called the ‘Bill of Rights’ but all that I can remember being taught was that it was separate from the Constitution, with a sneaky inference that the first 10 amendments were somehow a lesser part of the framers’ vision.

One flag. One nation. One ruling body, Washington DC.

This is the situation we all face today as Americans who value the philosophy of our founding fathers. Despite being an absolute desecration of the founder’s concept of ‘United States’, the ‘Omnipotent Centralized State’ has become zeitgeist through our words, our patriotic displays and our teachings.

It’s a steep hill to climb, but this effect must be reversed if we are to keep our republic. Deprogramming the masses and awakening once again a pride in one’s state house is more cultural than legal, more art than science but it must be done. If the territory gained by the Tenth Movement is to stand we will have to find a way to ensure that future generations honor TWO flags in their classrooms, maybe even at ballgames- The Red White and Blue AND the flag of their state.

29 thoughts on “The Federal Government is NOT the United States”

In any event, they are DOOMING our cause by remaining silent on this ONE KEY ISSUE THAT MATTERS: i.e. the national sovereignty of each indivdual state.
That's ALL that matters– but it's the ONE THING that they REFUSE to address. So we've got to tell them to either get serious about state sovereignty– or get out of the way for those of us who ARE. These half-measures are worse than none at all, since they CONCEDE the point rather than remaining simply silent about it.

For example, SO WHAT if Lincoln did this, that or the other bad thing? If the Union is truly a nation, then he would ave done, all else aside, his paramount duty as president of that nation: i.e. to preserve and defend its sovereign integrity. And thus, he would have been RIGHT and CORRECT in assertion that "no state can lawfully get out of the Union by its own mere motion."
On the contrary, ONLY if the individual states are EACH sovereign nations, could they do so.
So why won't Thomas Dilorenzo, Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano, Kevin Gutzman, Thomas Woods, Lew Rockwell, or ANY of these so-called "Libertarians" DARE talk about this "naked emperor" which is Union Sovereignty?
Are they scared, stupid– or simply scared stupid? Are they walking on eggshells to avoid being perceived as "too radical and extreme?" If so, then they clearly lack the couage of ther convictions, since truth is a defense of itself, and the issue of state vs. Union sovereignty is a matter of simple HISTORICAL FACT

This half-hearted iconoclasm by self-proclaimed "Libertarians," is precisely the PROBLEM with the so-called "Libertarian Movement–" i.e. every prevailing speaker for it, from Thomas Dilorenzo to Ron Paul, fails to address the "Elephant in the Room" of state sovereignty– and by failing to do so, they basically agree that it's NOT THERE– and that the United States IS a sovereign nation.
And thus, they tacitly admit that the states themselves are NOT sovereign nations.
Thus, they HARM our cause, by actling like champions for our cause– but then SURRENDERING it!
We cannot allow such half-men to go to bat for us, if they are not willing to step up to the plate for fear of being blackballed. We might as well have hired Benedict Arnold instead of George Washington, and saved ourselves 250 years.

The problem with Dilorenzo– like all other "Libertarians," is his professional brinksmanship of stopping just short of saying on record, that every state is a sovereign nation by international law.
Rather, he makes tangent, ancillary claims– e.g. saying that that "the Union was voluntary" etc.
But there is no such THING as a "voluntary nation;" and thus while he IMPLIES that the Union was not a nation, he won't go on RECORD as saying such, directly and outright; and therefore, he FORFEITS that claim, and instead surrenders to the opposing view through silence, by failing to CHALLENGE AND DENY the current claim of the reigning regime: by which the federal government derives its validating claim of supreme national power and authority: i.e. that the Union is a single sovereign nation.

Ah, I see the problem. You grew up in California.
I grew up in Connecticut, and we studied the history of the State of Connecticut as well as the history of the individual New England states. My kids went to school in Florida and Oklahoma before being homeschooled, and both of those states included the (mandatory) history of the state.
My oldest did spend time in California schools- in L.A. – and no – he never encountered California state history. Interesting, eh?

NIce comments on Lincoln. I completely agree. But why do you do close with a paen to the United States Armed Forces? They do not defend freedom; they never have. Every time they have left our shores to "defend freedom" we have always had less of it when they have returned. On my web site (which is down right now) I have documented over 500 instances in which the United States Armed Forces have failed to defend our freedom from the Comamnder-in-Chief, the supreme court and CONgress. No, I am not suggesting that it is the United States Armed Forces' duty to overthrow the Federal government and restore our Constitution. But I do expect them to obey their Oaths and refuse to obey the unlawful orders that are contrary to the Constitution (Article IV, Section 4). Specifically, I am referring to fighting foreign wars. It can be done; I did it. I claimed status as a Constitutional Defender (not a Conscientious Objector); Ehren Watada did it. We both struck a blow for liberty against the Federal leviathan.

Mr Lincoln acknowledged, at least in part
when he refused the request to declare
the slaves freed, “I do not have the
constitutional authority to do so.”

I propose to dig the dog up….or at least
try him in absentia, for treason, genocide,
failure to uphold his sworn duty to uphold the
constitution, and other high crimes & misdemeanors.

Hell….under my sovereignty …I hereby charge Abraham
Lincoln with the above crimes, find him guilty, strip
him of all citizenship rights, order his rotten body
deported, and his name forever forbidden from speech or
written record in polite society…

It's called "The Civil War" because history is written by the victors– but only a FOOL would believe that's how it happened, rather than checking out the facts for himself.
If Lincoln was right, the OJ is innocent.

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Shonka. Given the usage of the terms “United States” and “State(s)” in both the Constitution and historical materials pertaining to the Constitution, the term “United States” is a reasonable reference to the federal government.

The real problem, IMO, is that when people don’t understand the Founder’s division of federal and state government powers as evidenced by the 10th Amendment then you have the following problem. The federal government becomes the real government, state-sovereignty ignorant people merely accepting that the states exist, but not really understanding why they exist.

The following link should help give people an idea how state sovereignty-ignorant voters have shot themselves in the foot with big, corrupt federal government as a consequence of the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 16th and 17th Amendments.

Sorry Byrce…not Bruce!… And if you or anyone else here has not read these two books by Thomas DiLorenzo…you might want to !!!!

DiLorenzo has authored at least ten books, including The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, DiLorenzo has authored at least ten books, including The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, and Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe

Now I and others did not need Mr DiLorenzo to write these books but I and others I am sure are very glad he did…

This is why you never heard anything in your History classes ..Byrce…This and so much else!

There was no mention in my childhood of state sovereignty…not even the briefest mention of the 10th Amendment…

And why did that happen Bruce? How did that happen? Have you answered that yet…? You need to talk to more educated Southerners…my friend..States rights and the sovereignity of states rel to the central government was forever settled according to the deconstructionists of American History by the results of The War Between the States…Once these individuals were able to subsume this right beneath the abhorrance of slavery…that was the end of state sovereignity…Of course many of these same deconstructionists also continued to import slaves in New England even after slavery was stopped there…
Moreover…even Mr Lincoln…who has become a “god like myth”…did not
free the slaves except in states that supposedly were in rebellion against the central government…Mr Lincloln was the ultimate pragmatist…one of the strongest purveyers of central government…not…”the god like myth”
man…

I am extremely happy that the right of states has come out from under the subsumation of the issue of slavery..indeed.

And even more happy that the Tenth Amendment Center has determined to
elucidate and educate anyone who seeks to understand the very nature of the structures upon which We the People rule in America…ignorance of history or not!

You are spot-on! In fact, they barely spend any time on the subject in law school, where we spend a whole semester on the Constitution. Of course, as future lawyers, we need to learn what the state of the law is – as mangled as it is.

I strongly believe that tenth-grade should come with a requirement on understanding the relation between states and feds, at least for 6 weeks of a semester on history. Everyone is taught the Civil War was about slavery, when actually, that was really just the straw that broke the camel’s back.

How can one understand what caused major historical events like this to happen if they aren’t taught the perspective? It was all about power, control and law-making authority. Always has been – always will be.

In grade school, I remember getting out with an extremely vague notion that Reconstruction was just a rowdy period where rogue states didn’t want to accept losing the war. WTF????

I remember pledging allegiance to the Texas flag back in school in Texas.

I agree we need to revise State pride, and that starts with taking control of education and putting greater emphases on State history and constitutional law. (If we are to pay to teach, anything in a democratic republic one would thing that is the most publicly interested thing to teach to all future voters, in that the future of our republican system of law and freedom is depended upon their knowledge of such things in voting.)

To that, end one possible argument for this is that most all of the laws and order come from the State not federal government and it is fundamentally essential that children are educated in the law of the land.

I am not sure we need to take it as far as pledging allegiance to the State flag or State republic. Remember we wish people to choose among the republics somewhat freely as to encourage competition between them for the same people and business.

We do however for the practical concern of getting people to pay attention and maintain the ballade need to get people to be much more strongly aware of their State and its importance.

Sorry Petey, I disagree with Charles Beard and his Econonomic Interpretation of the Constitution also. I will agree that the mindset you speak of (and we both comdemn) was present at the Constituional Convention, in the guise of Alexander Hamilton. What we are seeing today is the realization of Hamilton’s nationalism, and the defeat of James Madision’s constitutionalism. Check out my web site for more information.

The intent of the founding fathers was not to ensure democracy, or liberty, or freedom, for anyone. It was to enshrine the notion that a few wealthy elites would gain and maintain power through the exploitation of the masses. The Fed has always colluded with the wealthy, starting wars, invading other countries, keeping workers down, denying people their civil rights.

All interesting ideas. Most days I proudly fly ONLY my California flag from my 25 foot flag pole. On certain patriotic days I will fly an historic red, white and blue flag. The only day I will fly that 50 starred symbol of foreign imperialism and a domestic government that is out of control is on out nation’s birthday July 28, 1868 — and then at half-mast, only because my wife will not let me fly it upside down. I am curious why would someone feel the coporate United states was set up in 1871? Posse Comitatus? No — 14th amendment (1868)!

I think this is very well done and we would LOVE to have your input/another article in our upcoming edition of The Good American Post. I will try and find an email for you. Thank you for being a patriot!

NOT according to the Founding Fathers– see Federalist No. 39.
The USA is the federal government, only according to the Neconservative Whigs of the Lincoln Administation, who suppressed the sovereign states through totalitarian mayhem, and established a federal coup d'etat by which the Constitution became whatever the FED said.

Gene, I understand what you’re saying here. But that certainly isn’t the point that Bryce was trying to make in his article. Here he’s talking about national supremacy on everything in our society, and that problems is creates for those who believe in decentralization.

Under current regime-policy, the United States IS the federal government– it is the ruling sovereign.
LEGALLY, the ruling sovereign is the PEOPLE of each individual state, which is likewise a sovereign nation equal to any other– NOT simply part of a larger nation called "the United States." No such nation exists, except by delegation of the sovereign member-states; rather, the United States is a FEDERAL REPUBLIC, not a sovereign nation in its own right.

However the public has been so brainwashed by post-Lincoln propaganda and the Pledge of al-LIE-gance, that they truly believe that the USA is "one indivisibile nation" with no defined ruling sovereigns– just a federal government.
Again, that's a LIE.
EVERY STATE is a soveregn nation, and its CITIZENS are the ruling sovereigns thereof.
They have been hoodwinked and brainwashed, and now their servants– i.e. the state and federal governments– are now their MASTERS.